Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Eric Holder on America and Race: 'A Nation of Cowards'

by Eugene Cho 02-19-2009 | 3:45pm
Print
42 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Are you a coward? Chicken? When it comes to the issue of race, why are Americans [including Christians] so reticent and reluctant to engage in honest conversations? What are we scared of? This is a thought provoking and honest assessment about the American people and the issue of race by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards...

I have two instructions for you:

  1. Read the article below.
  2. Discuss. Agree? Disagree? Damn it: Why does it always have to be just about black and white? What does "translated into policy" mean? What are we afraid of?

For those bored, I have some previous stuff dealing with race:

Here's the article:

WASHINGTON (CNN)

42 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Guest

03-08-2009 @ 12:11am

The user deleted this comment.

by: Guest

03-07-2009 @ 10:43pm

The user deleted this comment.

by: judithod

02-19-2009 @ 10:23pm

In his speech, Holder also said, " There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self-interest."

On the one hand, Holder is calling for a frank discussion, but on the other hand, he's ruling out the positions that he considers "extreme." His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees. A "legitimate debate" would engage all positions, including the extremes. Does Holder have an interest in genuine dialogue or just in his opinion?

by: BlueDeacon

02-20-2009 @ 1:30am

His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees.

Well, what would those positions be? Heck, in my case I've experienced several situations where just my presence was a statement (and intended to be such). I know personally what it's like to be told "You don't belong" -- and I live in a major city in the North.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 4:25pm

My question to Eric Holder would be:
1) What would a "forthright national conversation" about race look like? It seems like whenever race is discussed on a "national" level it devolves into a shout fest between one group accusing another group of racist behavior and the other group denying it. The debate over this New York Post cartoon is a perfect example. If this is a national conversation on race, count me out.

Eugene asks some good questions. I agree that, in general, people shy away from discussing race. I think there are many reasons for this but the main one is probably people don't want to take the risk of offending someone with which they work or have a friendship.

We don't need a national conversation on race. What we need is more interaction on a daily basis with people of other races. We self-segregate ourselves to the extent that we often are uncomfortable when we're around people who are different. We don't want to say or do something that may or may not be offensive. It's just easier being around people who are similar to us. Calls for "national conversations" are pointless. What we need are community-based intentional interaction between races. This can start with churches.

by: nuclearferret

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

"the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated.""

So we can count on the new AG to usurp people's right to do so?

Americans are free to have an honest conversation on race. Unless they touch any of the many "third rails" of racial conversation, in which point they are immediately branded a racist and then persecuted at their work place and in their private lives, without meaningful opportunity for explanation. Ultimately, the "honest" conversation appears to come down to "White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

Eric77,

That's the biggest crock of baloney I've read for a long time. I have worked in offices that included black and white Americans. We celebrated Black History Month together. We had office parties. We celebrated each other's birthdays. We attended funerals of family members. We visited each other's homes. We went to graduation parties and weddings. And occassionally, the subject of race relationships emerged and we expressed ourselves with respect and civility.

If I had not encountered these wonderful ladies and gentlemen in the workplace, my life would not have become as enriched as it is today. I recommend that you try it.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 5:18pm

Yikes. Please cool it with the snark Marie.

I didn't say people can't develop meaningful interracial friendships through their workplace. I definitely think they can. In fact, my coworker is of a different race as myself and we are good friends. What i did say was that, often times, discussions of race are discouraged in the workplace because of the risk of offending people and people filing complaints when they get offended. I'm glad that your experience has been different. That doesn't mean what I said is a "crock of baloney", it merely means you've had a different experience. Again, I'm glad.

by: ourfoundingtruth

02-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

Certain subjects are off limits because of a lawsuit Mr. Attorney General.

by: Eric77

02-20-2009 @ 5:33pm

John McWhorter has a good column on this subject in the New Republic. He writes:

"After all, if Holder were really interested in a "conversation" on race, he would understand that America is engaged in one year-round. The claim that America 'doesn't want to talk about race' is hardly uncommon, and has a dramatic tang...
A Martian observer--or a modern Tocqueville--would readily see that America was rather obsessed with race. Certainly we are an America ardently 'conversing' about it year-round. What Holder wants is not a conversation but a conversion."

Check it out:

www dot tnr dot com/politics/story.html?id=ce688a73-1019-485c-886f-7bbbda916e11

by: kevin47

02-19-2009 @ 6:46pm

I think SisterMarie goes a long way toward answering a bunch of Eugene's questions. Discussions about race cannot be honest when they are laced with sanctimony and hysterics.

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 7:59pm

I totally agree. Those who are unable to avoid sanctimony and hysterics when engaging members of other races should definitely avoid interaction with them. If, on the other hand, we are willing to listen respectfully, we may realize real progress in relationships in the workplace, in our schools, and in our neighborhoods.

by: WaveTossed

02-19-2009 @ 8:32pm

"White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

Not a bad idea on the whole. As an example of White privilege: I don't know any White people who ever got stopped by the police for "driving while Black."

Now there are some complications to the above: White/Black isn't the only category of privilege/oppression. There are the categories of Male/Female, Straight/Gay, Economically Comfortable/Economically Poor, Able-Bodied/Handicapped, and a host of others. Unless a person is a poor Black Lesbian who is handicapped: most people (of whatever race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, disability, etc.) will find themselves on different sides of the privileged/oppressed divide. Sensitivity is needed on the part of all people.

To completely deny that any sort of privilege or oppression exists in U.S. society is to put one's head in the sand.

by: judithod

02-19-2009 @ 10:23pm

In his speech, Holder also said, " There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self-interest."

On the one hand, Holder is calling for a frank discussion, but on the other hand, he's ruling out the positions that he considers "extreme." His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees. A "legitimate debate" would engage all positions, including the extremes. Does Holder have an interest in genuine dialogue or just in his opinion?

by: BlueDeacon

02-20-2009 @ 1:30am

His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees.

Well, what would those positions be? Heck, in my case I've experienced several situations where just my presence was a statement (and intended to be such). I know personally what it's like to be told "You don't belong" -- and I live in a major city in the North.

by: Eric77

02-20-2009 @ 5:33pm

John McWhorter has a good column on this subject in the New Republic. He writes:

"After all, if Holder were really interested in a "conversation" on race, he would understand that America is engaged in one year-round. The claim that America 'doesn't want to talk about race' is hardly uncommon, and has a dramatic tang...
A Martian observer--or a modern Tocqueville--would readily see that America was rather obsessed with race. Certainly we are an America ardently 'conversing' about it year-round. What Holder wants is not a conversation but a conversion."

Check it out:

www dot tnr dot com/politics/story.html?id=ce688a73-1019-485c-886f-7bbbda916e11

by: Guest

03-08-2009 @ 12:11am

The user deleted this comment.

by: Guest

03-07-2009 @ 10:43pm

The user deleted this comment.

by: judithod

02-20-2009 @ 9:59pm

Can't pretend to put words in Holder's mouth, but an assumption could be that he might agree with the demonstration led by Sharpton against the New York Post and disagree with the format of the Post's apology. And concerning that cartoon controversy, an inference could be made that the Post's cartoonist and editorial staff are so lacking in racial prejudice that they never made the racial connection alleged by Sharpton. One also might bristle at the intimidation promoted by Sharpton and his fellow demonstrators. Did Sharpton try to have a discussion with the Post before launching the demonstration?

by: ando

02-21-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Jesu's answers our race issues"

Even for Liberals? I thought it was the voting booth. Perhaps if more African American families were offered school choice options, more would hear about His saving grace. Got to get it past the Dems, though.

by: alanbean

02-21-2009 @ 5:18pm

Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with. We can talk all we want about affirmative action, political correctness, identity politics, victimization, etc., but the fact remains that white and black Americans experience the world differently and that, on the whole, the difference works to the advantage of us white people. The fact that some black people occasionally play the race card doesn't negate this simple fact. The de facto segregation of the Christian church makes sense sociologically, but it can't be justified theologically.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-22-2009 @ 10:04pm

Looking broadly I think we have a mix of apathy, fear,weariness, resignation, confusion and racism that shuts down conversation. We also have much ongoing cultural change that gradually renders old conversations either irrelevant or not able to frame conversation in ways that engage the realities now.

I believe part of it is also due to a disconnect between the politicians/media who control the framing of mass communication and where people are at.

e.g. The public was likely ready to elect a black man (or a woman) President before the gatekeepers of public power and public conversation were ready. When I watched Iowa farmers move readily to support Jesse Jackson in the early 1980's I realized a broad swath of the public was open.

But I believe a big part of the reason Obama made it was not because he is post-racial or trans-racial -- but because he (i.e. his person and his language) could not be easily slotted into the old frozen conversations.

I am in a church in Montgomery, AL -- and I believe God is actively using us to advance racial healing in this city. And in our case it is not because we are talking about it nor working at it. It is a byproduct of humility, worship, submission, love, empowerment and service-- and most importantly it is God's gracious gift.

Let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quieit stream

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 4:25pm

My question to Eric Holder would be:
1) What would a "forthright national conversation" about race look like? It seems like whenever race is discussed on a "national" level it devolves into a shout fest between one group accusing another group of racist behavior and the other group denying it. The debate over this New York Post cartoon is a perfect example. If this is a national conversation on race, count me out.

Eugene asks some good questions. I agree that, in general, people shy away from discussing race. I think there are many reasons for this but the main one is probably people don't want to take the risk of offending someone with which they work or have a friendship.

We don't need a national conversation on race. What we need is more interaction on a daily basis with people of other races. We self-segregate ourselves to the extent that we often are uncomfortable when we're around people who are different. We don't want to say or do something that may or may not be offensive. It's just easier being around people who are similar to us. Calls for "national conversations" are pointless. What we need are community-based intentional interaction between races. This can start with churches.

by: judithod

02-20-2009 @ 9:59pm

Can't pretend to put words in Holder's mouth, but an assumption could be that he might agree with the demonstration led by Sharpton against the New York Post and disagree with the format of the Post's apology. And concerning that cartoon controversy, an inference could be made that the Post's cartoonist and editorial staff are so lacking in racial prejudice that they never made the racial connection alleged by Sharpton. One also might bristle at the intimidation promoted by Sharpton and his fellow demonstrators. Did Sharpton try to have a discussion with the Post before launching the demonstration?

by: ando

02-21-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Jesu's answers our race issues"

Even for Liberals? I thought it was the voting booth. Perhaps if more African American families were offered school choice options, more would hear about His saving grace. Got to get it past the Dems, though.

by: alanbean

02-21-2009 @ 5:18pm

Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with. We can talk all we want about affirmative action, political correctness, identity politics, victimization, etc., but the fact remains that white and black Americans experience the world differently and that, on the whole, the difference works to the advantage of us white people. The fact that some black people occasionally play the race card doesn't negate this simple fact. The de facto segregation of the Christian church makes sense sociologically, but it can't be justified theologically.

by: nuclearferret

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

"the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated.""

So we can count on the new AG to usurp people's right to do so?

Americans are free to have an honest conversation on race. Unless they touch any of the many "third rails" of racial conversation, in which point they are immediately branded a racist and then persecuted at their work place and in their private lives, without meaningful opportunity for explanation. Ultimately, the "honest" conversation appears to come down to "White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

by: letjusticerolldown

02-22-2009 @ 10:04pm

Looking broadly I think we have a mix of apathy, fear,weariness, resignation, confusion and racism that shuts down conversation. We also have much ongoing cultural change that gradually renders old conversations either irrelevant or not able to frame conversation in ways that engage the realities now.

I believe part of it is also due to a disconnect between the politicians/media who control the framing of mass communication and where people are at.

e.g. The public was likely ready to elect a black man (or a woman) President before the gatekeepers of public power and public conversation were ready. When I watched Iowa farmers move readily to support Jesse Jackson in the early 1980's I realized a broad swath of the public was open.

But I believe a big part of the reason Obama made it was not because he is post-racial or trans-racial -- but because he (i.e. his person and his language) could not be easily slotted into the old frozen conversations.

I am in a church in Montgomery, AL -- and I believe God is actively using us to advance racial healing in this city. And in our case it is not because we are talking about it nor working at it. It is a byproduct of humility, worship, submission, love, empowerment and service-- and most importantly it is God's gracious gift.

Let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quieit stream

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

Eric77,

That's the biggest crock of baloney I've read for a long time. I have worked in offices that included black and white Americans. We celebrated Black History Month together. We had office parties. We celebrated each other's birthdays. We attended funerals of family members. We visited each other's homes. We went to graduation parties and weddings. And occassionally, the subject of race relationships emerged and we expressed ourselves with respect and civility.

If I had not encountered these wonderful ladies and gentlemen in the workplace, my life would not have become as enriched as it is today. I recommend that you try it.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 5:18pm

Yikes. Please cool it with the snark Marie.

I didn't say people can't develop meaningful interracial friendships through their workplace. I definitely think they can. In fact, my coworker is of a different race as myself and we are good friends. What i did say was that, often times, discussions of race are discouraged in the workplace because of the risk of offending people and people filing complaints when they get offended. I'm glad that your experience has been different. That doesn't mean what I said is a "crock of baloney", it merely means you've had a different experience. Again, I'm glad.

by: ourfoundingtruth

02-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

Certain subjects are off limits because of a lawsuit Mr. Attorney General.

by: kevin47

02-19-2009 @ 6:46pm

I think SisterMarie goes a long way toward answering a bunch of Eugene's questions. Discussions about race cannot be honest when they are laced with sanctimony and hysterics.

by: ando

02-23-2009 @ 11:57pm

"Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with."

Are you including all the Northern soldiers in the Civil War, including many of Norwegian-Americans from Wisconsin who understood the freedom the slaves were fighting for because many of them were fighting for religious freedom from their State church? Are you including all the Whites who have fought for justice and freedom for other races over the years? Are you including those of us in the classroom who are White and surrounded by minority students? Just how do you propose we converse? I've done a lot of listening over the years, mostly by liberal Whites who feel a need to release their false guilt. I've sat through Education classes ad nauseum on the subject. I really don't have anything "meaningful" to say on the issue, because I don't toe the PC party line and am not a conservative.

So, just where do we begin?

by: SisterMarie

02-24-2009 @ 1:20pm

To borrow from an old proverb, "If you don't have anything meaningful to say, it's better not to say it at all."

And my heart really goes out to all of those Norwegian-Americans from Lake Wobegon for all of the terrible injustices that they experienced from the state church.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 8:43pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 10:11pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: ando

02-23-2009 @ 11:57pm

"Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with."

Are you including all the Northern soldiers in the Civil War, including many of Norwegian-Americans from Wisconsin who understood the freedom the slaves were fighting for because many of them were fighting for religious freedom from their State church? Are you including all the Whites who have fought for justice and freedom for other races over the years? Are you including those of us in the classroom who are White and surrounded by minority students? Just how do you propose we converse? I've done a lot of listening over the years, mostly by liberal Whites who feel a need to release their false guilt. I've sat through Education classes ad nauseum on the subject. I really don't have anything "meaningful" to say on the issue, because I don't toe the PC party line and am not a conservative.

So, just where do we begin?

by: SisterMarie

02-24-2009 @ 1:20pm

To borrow from an old proverb, "If you don't have anything meaningful to say, it's better not to say it at all."

And my heart really goes out to all of those Norwegian-Americans from Lake Wobegon for all of the terrible injustices that they experienced from the state church.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 8:43pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 7:59pm

I totally agree. Those who are unable to avoid sanctimony and hysterics when engaging members of other races should definitely avoid interaction with them. If, on the other hand, we are willing to listen respectfully, we may realize real progress in relationships in the workplace, in our schools, and in our neighborhoods.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 10:11pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: WaveTossed

02-19-2009 @ 8:32pm

"White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

Not a bad idea on the whole. As an example of White privilege: I don't know any White people who ever got stopped by the police for "driving while Black."

Now there are some complications to the above: White/Black isn't the only category of privilege/oppression. There are the categories of Male/Female, Straight/Gay, Economically Comfortable/Economically Poor, Able-Bodied/Handicapped, and a host of others. Unless a person is a poor Black Lesbian who is handicapped: most people (of whatever race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, disability, etc.) will find themselves on different sides of the privileged/oppressed divide. Sensitivity is needed on the part of all people.

To completely deny that any sort of privilege or oppression exists in U.S. society is to put one's head in the sand.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 4:25pm

My question to Eric Holder would be:
1) What would a "forthright national conversation" about race look like? It seems like whenever race is discussed on a "national" level it devolves into a shout fest between one group accusing another group of racist behavior and the other group denying it. The debate over this New York Post cartoon is a perfect example. If this is a national conversation on race, count me out.

Eugene asks some good questions. I agree that, in general, people shy away from discussing race. I think there are many reasons for this but the main one is probably people don't want to take the risk of offending someone with which they work or have a friendship.

We don't need a national conversation on race. What we need is more interaction on a daily basis with people of other races. We self-segregate ourselves to the extent that we often are uncomfortable when we're around people who are different. We don't want to say or do something that may or may not be offensive. It's just easier being around people who are similar to us. Calls for "national conversations" are pointless. What we need are community-based intentional interaction between races. This can start with churches.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 4:25pm

My question to Eric Holder would be:
1) What would a "forthright national conversation" about race look like? It seems like whenever race is discussed on a "national" level it devolves into a shout fest between one group accusing another group of racist behavior and the other group denying it. The debate over this New York Post cartoon is a perfect example. If this is a national conversation on race, count me out.

Eugene asks some good questions. I agree that, in general, people shy away from discussing race. I think there are many reasons for this but the main one is probably people don't want to take the risk of offending someone with which they work or have a friendship.

We don't need a national conversation on race. What we need is more interaction on a daily basis with people of other races. We self-segregate ourselves to the extent that we often are uncomfortable when we're around people who are different. We don't want to say or do something that may or may not be offensive. It's just easier being around people who are similar to us. Calls for "national conversations" are pointless. What we need are community-based intentional interaction between races. This can start with churches.

by: nuclearferret

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

"the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated.""

So we can count on the new AG to usurp people's right to do so?

Americans are free to have an honest conversation on race. Unless they touch any of the many "third rails" of racial conversation, in which point they are immediately branded a racist and then persecuted at their work place and in their private lives, without meaningful opportunity for explanation. Ultimately, the "honest" conversation appears to come down to "White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

by: nuclearferret

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

"the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated.""

So we can count on the new AG to usurp people's right to do so?

Americans are free to have an honest conversation on race. Unless they touch any of the many "third rails" of racial conversation, in which point they are immediately branded a racist and then persecuted at their work place and in their private lives, without meaningful opportunity for explanation. Ultimately, the "honest" conversation appears to come down to "White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

Eric77,

That's the biggest crock of baloney I've read for a long time. I have worked in offices that included black and white Americans. We celebrated Black History Month together. We had office parties. We celebrated each other's birthdays. We attended funerals of family members. We visited each other's homes. We went to graduation parties and weddings. And occassionally, the subject of race relationships emerged and we expressed ourselves with respect and civility.

If I had not encountered these wonderful ladies and gentlemen in the workplace, my life would not have become as enriched as it is today. I recommend that you try it.

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 5:08pm

Eric77,

That's the biggest crock of baloney I've read for a long time. I have worked in offices that included black and white Americans. We celebrated Black History Month together. We had office parties. We celebrated each other's birthdays. We attended funerals of family members. We visited each other's homes. We went to graduation parties and weddings. And occassionally, the subject of race relationships emerged and we expressed ourselves with respect and civility.

If I had not encountered these wonderful ladies and gentlemen in the workplace, my life would not have become as enriched as it is today. I recommend that you try it.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 5:18pm

Yikes. Please cool it with the snark Marie.

I didn't say people can't develop meaningful interracial friendships through their workplace. I definitely think they can. In fact, my coworker is of a different race as myself and we are good friends. What i did say was that, often times, discussions of race are discouraged in the workplace because of the risk of offending people and people filing complaints when they get offended. I'm glad that your experience has been different. That doesn't mean what I said is a "crock of baloney", it merely means you've had a different experience. Again, I'm glad.

by: Eric77

02-19-2009 @ 5:18pm

Yikes. Please cool it with the snark Marie.

I didn't say people can't develop meaningful interracial friendships through their workplace. I definitely think they can. In fact, my coworker is of a different race as myself and we are good friends. What i did say was that, often times, discussions of race are discouraged in the workplace because of the risk of offending people and people filing complaints when they get offended. I'm glad that your experience has been different. That doesn't mean what I said is a "crock of baloney", it merely means you've had a different experience. Again, I'm glad.

by: ourfoundingtruth

02-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

Certain subjects are off limits because of a lawsuit Mr. Attorney General.

by: ourfoundingtruth

02-19-2009 @ 5:50pm

The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."

Certain subjects are off limits because of a lawsuit Mr. Attorney General.

by: kevin47

02-19-2009 @ 6:46pm

I think SisterMarie goes a long way toward answering a bunch of Eugene's questions. Discussions about race cannot be honest when they are laced with sanctimony and hysterics.

by: kevin47

02-19-2009 @ 6:46pm

I think SisterMarie goes a long way toward answering a bunch of Eugene's questions. Discussions about race cannot be honest when they are laced with sanctimony and hysterics.

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 7:59pm

I totally agree. Those who are unable to avoid sanctimony and hysterics when engaging members of other races should definitely avoid interaction with them. If, on the other hand, we are willing to listen respectfully, we may realize real progress in relationships in the workplace, in our schools, and in our neighborhoods.

by: SisterMarie

02-19-2009 @ 7:59pm

I totally agree. Those who are unable to avoid sanctimony and hysterics when engaging members of other races should definitely avoid interaction with them. If, on the other hand, we are willing to listen respectfully, we may realize real progress in relationships in the workplace, in our schools, and in our neighborhoods.

by: WaveTossed

02-19-2009 @ 8:32pm

"White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

Not a bad idea on the whole. As an example of White privilege: I don't know any White people who ever got stopped by the police for "driving while Black."

Now there are some complications to the above: White/Black isn't the only category of privilege/oppression. There are the categories of Male/Female, Straight/Gay, Economically Comfortable/Economically Poor, Able-Bodied/Handicapped, and a host of others. Unless a person is a poor Black Lesbian who is handicapped: most people (of whatever race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, disability, etc.) will find themselves on different sides of the privileged/oppressed divide. Sensitivity is needed on the part of all people.

To completely deny that any sort of privilege or oppression exists in U.S. society is to put one's head in the sand.

by: WaveTossed

02-19-2009 @ 8:32pm

"White people have been horrible in the past. They aren't so terrible now, but they benefit from the vestiges of slavery and racism. Society needs to make this up to those who aren't white."

Not a bad idea on the whole. As an example of White privilege: I don't know any White people who ever got stopped by the police for "driving while Black."

Now there are some complications to the above: White/Black isn't the only category of privilege/oppression. There are the categories of Male/Female, Straight/Gay, Economically Comfortable/Economically Poor, Able-Bodied/Handicapped, and a host of others. Unless a person is a poor Black Lesbian who is handicapped: most people (of whatever race, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, disability, etc.) will find themselves on different sides of the privileged/oppressed divide. Sensitivity is needed on the part of all people.

To completely deny that any sort of privilege or oppression exists in U.S. society is to put one's head in the sand.

by: judithod

02-19-2009 @ 10:23pm

In his speech, Holder also said, " There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self-interest."

On the one hand, Holder is calling for a frank discussion, but on the other hand, he's ruling out the positions that he considers "extreme." His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees. A "legitimate debate" would engage all positions, including the extremes. Does Holder have an interest in genuine dialogue or just in his opinion?

by: judithod

02-19-2009 @ 10:23pm

In his speech, Holder also said, " There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self-interest."

On the one hand, Holder is calling for a frank discussion, but on the other hand, he's ruling out the positions that he considers "extreme." His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees. A "legitimate debate" would engage all positions, including the extremes. Does Holder have an interest in genuine dialogue or just in his opinion?

by: BlueDeacon

02-20-2009 @ 1:30am

His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees.

Well, what would those positions be? Heck, in my case I've experienced several situations where just my presence was a statement (and intended to be such). I know personally what it's like to be told "You don't belong" -- and I live in a major city in the North.

by: BlueDeacon

02-20-2009 @ 1:30am

His real complaint appears to be not the absence of frank discussion but the existence of and articulation of positions with which he disagrees.

Well, what would those positions be? Heck, in my case I've experienced several situations where just my presence was a statement (and intended to be such). I know personally what it's like to be told "You don't belong" -- and I live in a major city in the North.

by: Eric77

02-20-2009 @ 5:33pm

John McWhorter has a good column on this subject in the New Republic. He writes:

"After all, if Holder were really interested in a "conversation" on race, he would understand that America is engaged in one year-round. The claim that America 'doesn't want to talk about race' is hardly uncommon, and has a dramatic tang...
A Martian observer--or a modern Tocqueville--would readily see that America was rather obsessed with race. Certainly we are an America ardently 'conversing' about it year-round. What Holder wants is not a conversation but a conversion."

Check it out:

www dot tnr dot com/politics/story.html?id=ce688a73-1019-485c-886f-7bbbda916e11

by: Eric77

02-20-2009 @ 5:33pm

John McWhorter has a good column on this subject in the New Republic. He writes:

"After all, if Holder were really interested in a "conversation" on race, he would understand that America is engaged in one year-round. The claim that America 'doesn't want to talk about race' is hardly uncommon, and has a dramatic tang...
A Martian observer--or a modern Tocqueville--would readily see that America was rather obsessed with race. Certainly we are an America ardently 'conversing' about it year-round. What Holder wants is not a conversation but a conversion."

Check it out:

www dot tnr dot com/politics/story.html?id=ce688a73-1019-485c-886f-7bbbda916e11

by: judithod

02-20-2009 @ 9:59pm

Can't pretend to put words in Holder's mouth, but an assumption could be that he might agree with the demonstration led by Sharpton against the New York Post and disagree with the format of the Post's apology. And concerning that cartoon controversy, an inference could be made that the Post's cartoonist and editorial staff are so lacking in racial prejudice that they never made the racial connection alleged by Sharpton. One also might bristle at the intimidation promoted by Sharpton and his fellow demonstrators. Did Sharpton try to have a discussion with the Post before launching the demonstration?

by: judithod

02-20-2009 @ 9:59pm

Can't pretend to put words in Holder's mouth, but an assumption could be that he might agree with the demonstration led by Sharpton against the New York Post and disagree with the format of the Post's apology. And concerning that cartoon controversy, an inference could be made that the Post's cartoonist and editorial staff are so lacking in racial prejudice that they never made the racial connection alleged by Sharpton. One also might bristle at the intimidation promoted by Sharpton and his fellow demonstrators. Did Sharpton try to have a discussion with the Post before launching the demonstration?

by: ando

02-21-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Jesu's answers our race issues"

Even for Liberals? I thought it was the voting booth. Perhaps if more African American families were offered school choice options, more would hear about His saving grace. Got to get it past the Dems, though.

by: ando

02-21-2009 @ 3:29pm

"Jesu's answers our race issues"

Even for Liberals? I thought it was the voting booth. Perhaps if more African American families were offered school choice options, more would hear about His saving grace. Got to get it past the Dems, though.

by: alanbean

02-21-2009 @ 5:18pm

Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with. We can talk all we want about affirmative action, political correctness, identity politics, victimization, etc., but the fact remains that white and black Americans experience the world differently and that, on the whole, the difference works to the advantage of us white people. The fact that some black people occasionally play the race card doesn't negate this simple fact. The de facto segregation of the Christian church makes sense sociologically, but it can't be justified theologically.

by: alanbean

02-21-2009 @ 5:18pm

Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with. We can talk all we want about affirmative action, political correctness, identity politics, victimization, etc., but the fact remains that white and black Americans experience the world differently and that, on the whole, the difference works to the advantage of us white people. The fact that some black people occasionally play the race card doesn't negate this simple fact. The de facto segregation of the Christian church makes sense sociologically, but it can't be justified theologically.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-22-2009 @ 10:04pm

Looking broadly I think we have a mix of apathy, fear,weariness, resignation, confusion and racism that shuts down conversation. We also have much ongoing cultural change that gradually renders old conversations either irrelevant or not able to frame conversation in ways that engage the realities now.

I believe part of it is also due to a disconnect between the politicians/media who control the framing of mass communication and where people are at.

e.g. The public was likely ready to elect a black man (or a woman) President before the gatekeepers of public power and public conversation were ready. When I watched Iowa farmers move readily to support Jesse Jackson in the early 1980's I realized a broad swath of the public was open.

But I believe a big part of the reason Obama made it was not because he is post-racial or trans-racial -- but because he (i.e. his person and his language) could not be easily slotted into the old frozen conversations.

I am in a church in Montgomery, AL -- and I believe God is actively using us to advance racial healing in this city. And in our case it is not because we are talking about it nor working at it. It is a byproduct of humility, worship, submission, love, empowerment and service-- and most importantly it is God's gracious gift.

Let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quieit stream

by: letjusticerolldown

02-22-2009 @ 10:04pm

Looking broadly I think we have a mix of apathy, fear,weariness, resignation, confusion and racism that shuts down conversation. We also have much ongoing cultural change that gradually renders old conversations either irrelevant or not able to frame conversation in ways that engage the realities now.

I believe part of it is also due to a disconnect between the politicians/media who control the framing of mass communication and where people are at.

e.g. The public was likely ready to elect a black man (or a woman) President before the gatekeepers of public power and public conversation were ready. When I watched Iowa farmers move readily to support Jesse Jackson in the early 1980's I realized a broad swath of the public was open.

But I believe a big part of the reason Obama made it was not because he is post-racial or trans-racial -- but because he (i.e. his person and his language) could not be easily slotted into the old frozen conversations.

I am in a church in Montgomery, AL -- and I believe God is actively using us to advance racial healing in this city. And in our case it is not because we are talking about it nor working at it. It is a byproduct of humility, worship, submission, love, empowerment and service-- and most importantly it is God's gracious gift.

Let justice roll down like a river
and righteousness like a quieit stream

by: ando

02-23-2009 @ 11:57pm

"Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with."

Are you including all the Northern soldiers in the Civil War, including many of Norwegian-Americans from Wisconsin who understood the freedom the slaves were fighting for because many of them were fighting for religious freedom from their State church? Are you including all the Whites who have fought for justice and freedom for other races over the years? Are you including those of us in the classroom who are White and surrounded by minority students? Just how do you propose we converse? I've done a lot of listening over the years, mostly by liberal Whites who feel a need to release their false guilt. I've sat through Education classes ad nauseum on the subject. I really don't have anything "meaningful" to say on the issue, because I don't toe the PC party line and am not a conservative.

So, just where do we begin?

by: ando

02-23-2009 @ 11:57pm

"Is it just me, or is there a whole lot of white defensiveness on display in this conversation? In my experience, few Americans want to talk about race because it touches on deep issues (including the god-awful history between white and black people) that we aren't prepared to deal with."

Are you including all the Northern soldiers in the Civil War, including many of Norwegian-Americans from Wisconsin who understood the freedom the slaves were fighting for because many of them were fighting for religious freedom from their State church? Are you including all the Whites who have fought for justice and freedom for other races over the years? Are you including those of us in the classroom who are White and surrounded by minority students? Just how do you propose we converse? I've done a lot of listening over the years, mostly by liberal Whites who feel a need to release their false guilt. I've sat through Education classes ad nauseum on the subject. I really don't have anything "meaningful" to say on the issue, because I don't toe the PC party line and am not a conservative.

So, just where do we begin?

by: SisterMarie

02-24-2009 @ 1:20pm

To borrow from an old proverb, "If you don't have anything meaningful to say, it's better not to say it at all."

And my heart really goes out to all of those Norwegian-Americans from Lake Wobegon for all of the terrible injustices that they experienced from the state church.

by: SisterMarie

02-24-2009 @ 1:20pm

To borrow from an old proverb, "If you don't have anything meaningful to say, it's better not to say it at all."

And my heart really goes out to all of those Norwegian-Americans from Lake Wobegon for all of the terrible injustices that they experienced from the state church.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 8:43pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 8:43pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 10:11pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: andrewwang

03-07-2009 @ 10:11pm

Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.Many people know what Bush did.And many people will know what Bush did-even to the end of the world.Bush was absolute evil.Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.Bush is a psychological prisoner.Bush has a lot to worry about.Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993"GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY" BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: "If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded." Oh wait-off the top of my head-I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

by: Guest

03-07-2009 @ 10:43pm

The user deleted this comment.

by: Guest

03-07-2009 @ 10:43pm

The user deleted this comment.

by: Guest

03-08-2009 @ 12:11am

The user deleted this comment.

by: Guest

03-08-2009 @ 12:11am

The user deleted this comment.